My grandpa was a brilliant guy - no one could call him dumb.
He taught me lessons that I'd heed for many years to come.
He had a way of putting moral teachings into view
Such as this one that I would like to share with all of you.
When I was only 5 or 6 and loved to run and play
My gramps and I were walking through the woods one sunny day
When, out of nowhere straight ahead, a deer came passing by!
He stopped right there in front of us and gave us both the eye.
How beautiful the young deer looked...his red fur shining bright.
I put a cookie in my hand to offer him a bite
But, as I stepped toward him, just imagine at my shock.....
When grandpa picked a large stone up and hit him with the rock!!
He threw another! Then another! "Grandpa, NO!", I cried.
I saw the growing stains of red upon the young deer's hide.
But grandpa was relentless as he threw stone after stone
Until the deer had disappeared and left us there alone.
I didn't say much after that - I was a mixed-up kid.
I couldn't seem to understand why gramps did what he did
So, later at the dinner table, I just had to know.
I said, "That was a fine young deer." Gramps answered, "Yes, I know."
"You don't like deer?" Gramps said, "Oh, no! I love them very much.
Their manner is majestic with fur silky to the touch.
Their eyes have so much beauty they can take away one's breath..."
"But, gramps!!", I cried. "You picked up rocks and pelted him to death!!!"
Gramps said, "There is a saying that the Indians all know
And it is practiced from the Sioux down to the Navajo.
The redmen have a strong respect for every living thing
And it is woven in the songs that tribal leaders sing.........."
The kindest way to treat a deer
Is throw a rock to teach it fear.
That night I didn't realize the point that grandpa made
But later, as I went through life and saw deer heads displayed
In hunting lodges, high on walls, it made me understand
That I was looking up at deer that had no fear of man.
Then, later still, as years went by, I found it very clear
The lesson grandpa taught me was not solely meant for deer.
Sometimes in human interaction those same words hold true
Maintaining proper distance is the only thing to do.
If we feel it is wrong of us to try to keep them near
We must forget our own self-interests - treat them like the deer.
That doesn't mean we have to look around for rocks to throw!!!
But, even if we love them, we may have to let them go.
Sometimes we know, though love exists, the future isn't there
And we are headed down a road not going anywhere.
It's better we chase them away so they can stand up tall
Instead of being just a hunting trophy on the wall.
Yep, grandpa was a real smart man - the wisest man I knew...
Seems everything he taught me had a way of coming true.
I don't know where he is - up there in Heaven, I suppose
I'd like to tell him that I learned.....somehow, I think he knows.
Author notes
Written July 2nd, 2005
What did you think
Comments
1 - 75 of 75
-
Awesome
This is totally amazing, I was hooked from the first sentence, this rings true for so many things in life. I child that never learns independence grows to be a lazy adult who relies on others and doesn't stand on their own two feet. I think this is a poem that I'll be coming back to read over a few times!!
-
"If we feel it is wrong of us to try to keep them near
We must forget our own self-interests - treat them like the deer.
That doesn't mean we have to look around for rocks to throw!!!
But, even if we love them, we may have to let them go."
I wanted so to hold on tight, because I know pure gold...
But freedom reigns in stellar flight where wings of love unfold. ;F
-
Thank you for your thoughts, Dericlee. Yes, I can understand where these people would agree with your points and then disregard them. Nature claims that we are born with only one face but there are people who destroy that theory completely.
The critiques in question had nothing to do with the poem, of course, but retaliation by a group with an "all for one and one for all" mindset who selected me as the receipient of their affection. I would not expect them to honor any rules and their lack of same did not bother me in the slightest.
Thanks for sharing that with me and for your positive critique....and let me know which line can use the work!
-
I'll address the poem first by simply saying that it is up to your usual standards of form and delivery; well-constructed and to the point (though there's this one line that could be reworked a bit).
For the rest, I'd like to address all the discussion that's taken place beneath your work.
*
These are some concepts I expressed a few years back, that a friend recently brought back to my attention, telling me that he regarded them as his "Critic's Bible"
(How flattering can you get!?)
A while back, I thought I'd run 'em up the pole here, and see if anyone saluted. Most everyone who commented agreed completely. (Ironic that some of those very people have broken several of them here without a blush.)
There is no purpose and no place in a poetic critique for the following:
a ) any remark that devalues or denigrates the background, intelligence, culture or upbringing of the poet. In fact, it has no place anywhere in human conversation, and no one abridged that rule for poetry forums. If someone told you they had the authority to do so, they lied: stop listening to them.
b ) any remark indicating that the subject of the poem is not worth a poem. That decision rests with the poet alone. If you feel it ISN'T worth a poem, you aren't qualified to address the poem...so don't.
c ) any remark calculated to discourage the poet from trying to write poetry, including any semantic equivalent of "you have no talent, so give up!" There is no governing body empowering certain individuals as Guardians of Poetry and authorizing them to protect its Pure Nature by making "sub-standard" poets stop writing. If anyone has told you he is so empowered, he lied: stop listening to him. If anyone has told you that he has so empowered you, he lied: stop doing it!
d ) any remark calculated to cause emotional hurt, or any remark involving a judgement of the poet, rather than the poem. If you are incapable of saying the strongest negative concerning a poem in polite and respectful words, you aren't a poet...go get a better vocabulary and try again next year. If it is in your nature to NEED to render judgements in hurtful tones, go find an equivalent of 'masochists.com'...they need you...we don't.
In essence and in sum...If your purpose in offering crit is not to help the poet improve the poem and improve as a poet, DON'T CRIT. There are better ways for you to waste your time.
Edited on Dec 05, 7:45 p.m. because ''. -
LOL! Turkey feathers, mainly
Thanks for reading, good sir. Based on your (and my) background you may enjoy this one allpoetry.com/Poem/274819
Peace.... -
Controversial!
Balladeer! Too much praise is a sure sign we are doing something wrong! Take heart, man! You have ruffled some feathers!
(I really liked it!) -
Priceless
A Deer Lesson indeed. I am glad I am here. I am glad our paths crossed. I am glad I found your Deer Lesson. I am glad to have learned it and am now proud to also heed. It is the moral to, the explenataion of, in absolute, the most recenlty and most profound exsperience I have ever been subjected to. I am glad for having this clarity. I am glad to gain this knowledge. I am glad there is Balladeer -
Very awesome poem with a great bit of advice for all of us.I enjoyed the read immensely sir.
-
"I have very serious concerns about the policing of this site, and the fact that you got your friend Don (who was VERY rude to me in very personal terms in a private correspondence) ......"
Now, this just isn't an accurate statement. It seems you take liberty to badger me in private... and as long as I remain perfectly calm, under your intended control.... you call me a gentleman. But when I call your bid, you complain saying I've abused you and you post it on a public thread. That's a bit caddy, if I may say.
Yes, if you take my yahoo out of context, you can make me look anyway you want. Of course, you wouldn't do that because you're honorable, right? Remember, there is another half of that conversation.... and I believe it is you speaking... and some interesting reading at that..... though shocking attitudinally.
You relate that someone with a police background must therefore, be illiterate... I find that fascinating... and indiscreetly judgemental. You've never met me... you don't know me... you know nothing of my educational background (which is extensive) and yet, because I chose to work with various police departments in police defensive tactics you have drawn and quartered me as just a dumb, illiterate policeman. And, if that is not the case, you at minimal, have attempted to censor me.... in a strange and different way.... by claiming, though indirectly and through your arrogance, that you embody a greater intelligence and therefore what I say should be simply ignored.
I'd like to point one thing out, Sir, that I can find nowhere on this poem where Balladeer even asked for a critique.... it befuddles me to see so much critiquing occuring on a poem that doesn't ask for it.
You were rude to me woodworm, in private.... and now you open the doors to be rude to me in public... and smear me, my intelligence, and one of my careers (Police work).
You don't know me.
I suggest this for the future.... that you leave your tasteless comments about me out of your critiques on a member's poetry and keep your personal opinions on personalities just that.... personal.
I hope I have stated this fairly... and clearly.
Take care.... and have a nice day.
Don
Edited on Aug 29, 9:06 because ''. -
I bet that's the longest comment you've ever had! When the dust settles, I do hope you'll wipe it off. The Deer Poem might not be my favourite poem of all time, but it's still too good to be plastered with tangential discourses.
-
Sir, I'm afraid you are not as adept at guaging one's feelings as you would like to be. I have been neither aggrieved or upset by this situation and I would never allow a negative comment which I do not consider to be valid bother me. If Robert Frost, for example, were to berate my poetry then it would bother me. The thing is, though, Robert Frost would never berate under any circumstance. Men of intelligence and class do not. I am always open to constructive criticism. When profanity and name-calling begin, I do not get angry - the conversation simply ends for me. Your friends wasted their time with the insults.
I simply named this event for what it was - an organized smear tactic. I don't say it in anger, only in disappointment that people would act this way. There are enough valid signs to point to this conclusion that my mind will not change. Hopefully some good has come from it. It has progressed to a sincere exchange of ideas, I believe. I feel that I have come to know some of these people better and, hopefully, they know me better, even if they are disappointed in what they have learned.
" just as I believe passionately that it is wrong to punish children physically. On this I hope we can agree to disagree."
I know exactly why you used that comment and it should be beneath you.
"Opinions differ as to just what a critique should contain."
Yes, that is for sure. I can, however, state what a critique should NOT contain. I direct your attention to one of my earlier comments where I listed them, line by line.
"I don't think it's healthy for a literary community to be so strongly policed by those whose background is in law enforcement.)"
Do you really feel that an eloquent slur is any less of a slur than a nasty one? It is not. Vaclav Havel may have achieved it but you are not there yet Over the course of this thread you have made reference several times to the "rude" behavior you have been subjected to and yet, sir, I see no less in your statements. You want to bring in Don's background, which is an admirable one, as a way to indicate he is a poor choice to administrate on this site? You don't consider that rude and more than a cheap shot from someone who is supposedly a "literary intellectual"? You disappoint me with such tactics, sir.
No, I don't feel it is necessary to have a strong literary background to administrate a poetry site any more than it is necessary for the chairman of General motors to know how to rebuild a transmission. The administrators are here to enforce the rules...what better choice than someone who has done that for a career? True, he may not be tuned in to the "delicate dispositions" of the literary set but he doesn't need to be. He simply needs to be sure that those dispositions follow the rules that are set forth and that they agreed to upon joining the site.
Forgive me if I said anything you may consider harsh. It was not my intent at the beginning of this reply but I feel you overstepped your boundaries by bringing personal interaction between you and Don into this thread and it was necessary for me to respond.
Clean up this thread? No, I think it's very educational to be able to have a glimpse of the personalities behind the funny poetic handles
I shall now go back to my hurricane...winds are up to 80 and climbing. It could be a long night...
Edited on Aug 25, 2:49 p.m. because ''. -
Balladeer,
You are welcome.. glad that brought a smile. I suspect the odds of me finding a write which uses the word 'disappear' in that context might be a tad difficult considering you adeptly removed the option of having it vaporized, but if I ever do, I'll be sure to pass it on.
I appreciate that you've responded to my comments with both humor and grace, thank you for that. I can be a bit analytical, and sometimes that's taken in a hard light.. but hopefully it's clear that my aim is never to malign things only to question them, if I find I'm less than sure of my interpretations.
Like Woodworm, I'm not fond of the cruel to be kind adage, not because it lacks reason, or because I fail to see why many value it, but because for me it contracts something so very large into a very tight space, and things are never quite that linear for me.
Respectfully
~~Lisa/whims -
Balladeer:
I do hope you feel less aggrieved about our little exchange, and I hope you know that it was never my intention to upset you. I mentioned this poem in a writing group because I was honestly wondering if I was over-reacting to the poem, and I was interested in gauging whether the other writers in that group read your poem in the same way. Some did; some didn't. I now feel a bit guilty, because your poem has had a succession of rather negative reviews, and I know from experience just how hurtful even one negative review can be.
I can appreciate that the deer in your story was not literally stoned to death, though it is not unreasonable to read it that way in the light of line 24.
The basic premise of the poem is still the same: that sometimes you must be cruel to be kind; or that it is wise to keep a distance from others for various reasons. This is a common view, and the world is full of decent, good people like yourself, and indeed my own parents, who would share this view. But it is not my view. I don't believe that cruelty is ever kind. I believe this very passionately, just as I believe passionately that it is wrong to punish children physically. On this I hope we can agree to disagree.
This reminds me of an exchange with Dericlee a long time ago, when I disagreed with the premise of his poem on George Bush, and he flamed and reviled me. Since this, I have had lots of civil discussions with him, and we've developed a mutual respect. In all fairness to you, I think you have answered your critics with dignity, civility, kindness and patience. That's good to see, at a time when another moderator is addressing me with threats and insults in private correspondence.
Opinions differ as to just what a critique should contain. Eric is passionately of the view that the critique should address the form and not the content: I contend that they are inseparable. In a poem like this, which has an explicitly moral message, a "lesson", even, I think it is good for the author to cultivate a rather thicker hide than for, say, a love poem or a haiku. It is an ideologically loaded poem, by its very nature. Nothing wrong with that: but if I post a tirade about why Meat is Murder, for argument's sake, I might reasonably expect a debate on the ethics of vegetarianism to arise. In conducting the debate, it is very important that everyone remains civil and remembers that this is about TEXT: about modes of reading; about opinion; about idea. It is not, as Kasdeja suggests, about "behaviour" ... when I read a review of a novel by Winterson (say) it might contain critical, sometimes even scathing, remarks about Winterson's writing, or her ideas, or her world-view. But it is not "behaviour": that word is used by zoologists and classroom teachers.
(This is one reason why I honestly would like to see more site staff from a literary background, who perhaps have more experience of literary debates and the like. I don't think it's healthy for a literary community to be so strongly policed by those whose background is in law enforcement.)
Anyway, a lot of this discussion has strayed from the actual poem, so I won't be offended if you choose to "clean up" the text. Thank you for your patient replies. I hope you find some shelter from the storms, big and small.
All the best
-
LOL! Thanks for the smile, Lisa. Obviously you are attempting a bit of humor. I know you are an intelligent person by your previous comments and championing "disappear" to mean "cease to exist" in this poem would be to insult that intelligence. Ok, I'll play along. If you write about a man dying in a hospital bed, do you write, 'He disappeared!"? If you write about one man shooting another to death, fo you write, "He disappeared"? If a man stones an animal to death and it's laying there, bleeding, do you say "It disappeared"? Of course not. If you can show me one poem where disappear is used to mean ceases to exist referring to a living thing (unless they are vaporized), I'll be happy to concede your point. Until that time comes, I will let common sense dictate that there is no way a sensible person could interchange the two in this writing.
It may be a good idea to feature this poem. That way we can get the views of common, ordinary people on the site - not your groupies and not mods - just the average poets on the site and find out how they view the poem. Be interesting to see which views they support.
I have a feeling, though, that if I were to do that, many of the comments here would quickly "disappear" - and, by that, I DO mean "cease to exist".
-
Yes, point the hypocrisy finger. Honestly, I don't care if I'm forced to step down for speaking my mind and refusing to be censored from my thoughts. And, you can continue with your obvious baiting elsewhere. Label behaviors what you want, but it's painfully obvious that not all are what they seem. And, thanks for the judgement, I appreciate it as well. From now on, though, if you have something to say, say it in IM or on my page...not here, boards, etc. That may be seen as 'baiting', too.
-
And as a current moderator, Kas, I would think you would try to uphold the rules you try to enforce. I won't continue this, as I see it I will be the one who ends up with the warning and you will walk away from this unscathed. Judge away, and go ahead, bait those who have already commented here with your comment, all it does is show hypocrisy.
I DID enjoy this poem, whether or not you realize it, and I do believe so do the many people who have discussed it here. Perhaps you can't see past the debate, that is your problem, and not mine anymore. -
With all due respect, I'd like to know the difference between what is construed as my 'baiting' and what has gone on here? I'd like to think people would comment on poems honestly and without having to be pointed in a certain direction to criticize and argue for days. But, not always the case. As a former mod, suzi, I'm sure you recognize the difference. Especially since I've ignored MANY very directed comments the past week, have I not? VERY direct references, thank you for pointing out one I've made.
Edited on Aug 25, 12:42 because ''. -
At risk of being warned here, Kas, you left a very directed comment. I consider such things to be a manner of baiting people who have already commented. If you didn't wish to see this continued, I would think you would have commented on the poem, and not the comments left on the poem.
Leaving now...Balladeer knows what I think of the poem, and we have come to peaceful terms on this.
Again, Balladeer, thank you for such an inspiring write, I have really enjoyed the debate. -
I'm sorry, is arguing with the the writer and subsequent commenters whom don't agree with others considered a critical comment? Especially for this many pages of comments? I guess we all have differing views on that, too...I'm sure none here would be opposed to equal treatment by a group on one of thier poems. But, if one wishes to argue with me, I would hope they'd have the courtesy to do it in IM or on my page...and not clutter up the comment section with some other agenda opposed to bettering a piece of poetry.
Kasdeja -
Kasdeja,
Perhaps many do as it appeared you also did based on your verdict of if one actually reads . Excuse me, it was not obvious to me or I would not have found need to question it. Oddly it seeems to be those who are offering up different views who are being accused of harassment or seeing this only one way - quite an interesting generalization - that... I'd continue this further but I have no wish to spam this write any more than it has been..
One small point though in response to your comment:
I do believe the idea of 'critical' commment is there to allow us to note things we find noteworthy, or slightly ambiguous, is it not?
Nuff said..
Edited on Aug 25, 12:36 because ''. -
Obviously not, seems many do, though.
-
Verdict: Wonderful if you actually READ it.
You know, I just have to ask this, are you implying there is only ONE way to interpret this write??
Edited on Aug 25, 12:14 because ''. -
Wonderful if you actually READ it.
Wow, I can't believe the behavior on a poet's comment area of a poem. So, if I don't like a poem or don't agree with it on this site, can I start acting like this, too? I mean, even if it's isn't a moderator or someone from a certain 'group'. I'm sure glad no one around here is petty enough to do that...god forbid anyone should wish to censor anyone, right?
-
Sometimes I think, I kick myself deliberately doing these things, but I do them anyways.
I saw the growing stains of red upon the young deer's hide.
But grandpa was relentless as he threw stone after stone
Until the deer had disappeared and left us there alone.
Let's just take the word 'disappear' for a second, and consider what it might mean depending on how it's 'connected' to the rest of the write by one who reads.
Disappear can mean a few different things, get lost especially without warning, become invisible, fade or become less intense, but it's this one that interests me - cease to exist.
Yes the words which follow later on in the write may well be the exaggerated words of a child, and I'm not meaning to suggest that they aren't, however make no mistake it is quite possible to interpret the write - literally and still come up with a sum which equals - death to the deer.
That really is the danger in poetry, it's not prose, so in that sense it doesn't clarify because it's been compacted to a point where it cannot do so and remain what it is.
~~Lisa/whims
Edited on Aug 25, 12:07 because ''. -
LOL! I think it interesting, sir, that you can attach so may metaphors and alternate meanings - left/right.. liberal/conservative..black/white...racial - all of these you read into the words and yet something like your quoted line you choose to take literally. Should we be literal, then, how does the deer disappear as stated if he has just been pelted to death? That would be quite a trick. We are talking about a child's words here. Most children I know always exaggerate when excited. "I love her to death!" "You're killing me!" "That soup almost scalded me to death!" "He almost ripped my head off!"....need I go on? Those words were nothing more than an exaggerated expression from a shocked child. I am sincerely surprised that anyone would not see them in that way. Hopefully this helps to clarify this point.......
-
Just a note on Woodworm's critique above. Suzi misread that line to mean that your granddad actually killed the dear, too. I told her I think it was a kid's exaggeration. It is a little unclear, though.
-
Line 24: "But, gramps!!", I cried. "You picked up rocks and pelted him to death!!!"
-
"I saw the growing stains of red upon the young deer's hide.
But grandpa was relentless as he threw stone after stone
Until the deer had disappeared and left us there alone."
Those are the only words in the poem about the actions toward the deer. You take those words to say the action was not to scare but to kill. You see in those words that he pelted it to death. You infer that his intent was to kill the deer even though the rest of the entire poem negates that thought. Out of the hundreds of people who have read this poem on three web sites, you are the only one (discounting the friends that followed your lead)that has reached these conclusions. I would call that selective interpretation and it's regrettable that you employed it here but, as I said in another comment, one finds what one wants to find. The deer is alive and well and sends its regards
-
By the way .... I re-read your piece. Something I missed the first time around was that your grandpa didn't just throw a stone to scare the deer away: he pelted it "to death". Blood, and everything. Browning: Porphyria's Lover. To love something so much you want to kill it. Very Romantic. VERY VERY scary. I'm sorry, but I find it very very scary. How does a deer learn when it's dead?
-
Thanks for your reply! I'm not often compared to politicians, but I thank you all the same if you found my comment 'eloquent'. Politicians need to toe party lines, while I am an independent commentator. I'm just a guy in a room. I have nothing to gain from my 'eloquence' other than offering you a way of seeing another point of view. You invite critical comments on the piece, as we all do: I offered them. Bizarrely enough (and unfortunately for your conspiracy theory) I actually liked the poem in some ways. Not many people on this site can do perfect scansion, and I like it when someone can really write with rhythmic control like this. I liked the way you moved from parable to moral message, with the Indian adage in the middle. What chilled me (and I was honest about it) is the implicit message that we should establish a rigid paradigm of "us and them", and that the Other should be alienated for his/her own good. A reader could read all sorts of things into this. Personally I read it as a sort of insecurity: there seems to be a fear of the unknown in this poem. "If someone is different from you, keep them at a distance" seems to be the message. I can see why this might apply to relationships between men and women. I've been hurt by girls and I know what it is to throw stones at the deer, so to speak, though I'm fairly sure I don't consciously want to!
It might also apply to relationships between ideologies, states or races. That's not to say you are a racist, and I'm sure that isn't what Zara meant. I'm very certain that you didn't intend your poem to be a metaphor for race relations.
In all poetry, there is always a gap between what Nattiez called the 'poietic' and 'aesthesic' levels: what the writer intended, and what the reader reads. Both of those processes are mediated by ideology, and subject to critique. I often get critiques that 'misread' my poems, but, as Bloom argued in his book A Map of Misreading, misreading can be an important part of the critical/creative process. I'd urge you to listen to your misreaders, and try to think why they read your poem as they do. That tends to be more constructive than trying to get them silenced.
In short: it's an effective and well-crafted poem. It has something of Kipling about it, and I am not always so keen on his moral messages either. That's because I am a subversive commie with a John Birch Society file on me as long as your arm.
As for your idea of a campaign against you and your poem: it is no coincidence that a bunch of evil, subversive liberals came along to review your poem. You're right, so stop talking about 'odds'. I've already said that I mentioned your poem in a group. I said something along the lines of "look at this one, guys: am I just being over-sensitive?". I often point my friends in the direction of poems, as I'm sure you do. Sometimes, as with Phoebe or MsTrick, because they are wonderful; sometimes, as with some teeny love poems, because they are awful. In this case, while I admired the way your poem was written, I found the moral message (hurt someone and you do them a favour) difficult to handle. I suppose I wanted to know whether it was just me who felt this way. Isn't this fair? Sometimes I tell my friends they should read Kundera, or Andrea Dworkin. If they then decide to review the books, is this then an orchestrated hate campaign?
There is no conspiracy or agenda. I didn't say "Let's all go and be rude to Balladeer". Those who responded did so off their own bat, and their views were all different. Also, some of us have reviewed other poems of yours in a positive light: your last one, casting yourself as a victim, was lovely, I thought, and it's entirely your right to see things in this way. We all feel hard done by from time to time. No-one has a problem with you personally.
What I am trying to get you to see is that this is not about you as a person. Why, for Heaven's sake, would I decide to get a bunch of friends to harass a random poet on the site? I honestly think that you see things in this way, and I think it would be helpful if you could open your mind to the possibility that your critics are ideologically independent.
I apologise for the bad pun on your screen-name: it was a cheap shot, and I think because the poem was so didactic in its tone, I underestimated its author's sensitivity. Me sorry.
I also apologise for the slightly snide reference to banning and your status as a moderator. You're right: this isn't related to the poem. I used it as a metaphor: a critique of ideological control, if you will, which seemed to be implicit in the poem. I have very serious concerns about the policing of this site, and the fact that you got your friend Don (who was VERY rude to me in very personal terms in a private correspondence) to threaten your critics with exclusion does nothing to alleviate my concerns in this regard. But they are not related to your poem, and it was wrong of me to mix my paints in that respect.
I do my best to get involved with dialogues, because I find "us and them" mindsets unhelpful. (It's how wars start.) I'm sorry that your poem has become a divided battleground between moderators and my friends with a liberal education. The crucial difference, of course, is that you have the power to suppress what we say .... and it is to your very great credit that you don't use it! We lefty pinko commie bastards don't have the power to ban you, and it's one of the axioms of liberalism that we believe in freedom of speech even for those who disagree with us.
By the way: do you like Bob Dylan? He's quite a balladeer, you know. Do you know the John Birch Society Blues? I'd be interested in your views on it. Curiously enough, his rhymes and forms are not unlike yours, I think.
(I haven't been to AltWrite for months, btw. I think Gill meant that she was not directed to your poem by me, which is true.)
Edited on Aug 25, 5:13 because ''. -
"I am not in ANY group.. that Woodworm is in.."
NurseChilly, Woodworm must have snuck into the AltWrite group when you weren't looking because you are both listed as members...or is that just a misprint??? -
Actually, BillyD, I happen to agree with you. That line you pointed out was not worth it's salt and i could have done much better had I made a better effort. Throwing in extra syllables for the sake of meter is a trap all rhyming poets have to be alert to avoid...it's a sloppy line.
As far as the rest, some people hate rhyming poetry and some hate free verse. One can understand both sides. What is more difficult to understand is someone who hates rhyme, reading rhyme and then commenting on how much they hate rhyme. Seems like a waste of time to me. The simple solution would be to not bother reading what you know you hate, would it not? Since all of my poetry rhymes, then there's no need for you to bother. I hate to be the cause of mental anguish
-
I enjoyed this very much, Mike I particularly appreciated it, not only for the thoughtful and poetic rendition of a significant childhood lesson, but the philosophical levels that can be gleaned from wise analogies and maxims.
The fascinating thing about such aphorisms is that they often reveal the projected prejudices and perceptions of the interpreters better than anything else. Acting, in effect, like a reagent.
Just as philosophical poetry and parables always have, this prompts a subjective response coloured by the readers' personal perspectives and frame of reference.
That is an indicator, to me, of a well written poem.
I have always enjoyed rhyme for such subjects, as most of my favourite poets are rhymers (though not all), both historically and on here. It takes a particular discipline and skill to do it well, as Paul noted, and this is well done.
~G
-
I am not in ANY group.. that Woodworm is in..
and do not use my name without my said permission..
thankyou!!
-
I do enjoy reading stories of what grandparents have handed down to children whether it be physical or emotional. I actually enjoyed this very much. Whether it be rhyme or free verse, you made your point and made it very clear that the lessons we learn from our elders are usually very valuable. A wonderful piece to read and enjoy. Hugs, Patricia
-
Well, just a personal preference here. I suppose this could have been written as a prose paragraph, then split into short, choppy lines, like much of the freeverse I find here seems to be done. But, as a rhymer myself, I enjoy seeing the craft and effort it takes to create a piece like this. It takes adherence to form and some rules of composition - and I surely understand that some are totally turned off by rules and by form and that, of course, is their right. I guess I just prefer the well-crafted and carefully worded piece, rather than the straight forward, may I say "crass", wording of everyday speech.
Paul -
this is precisely why i hate rhyme... this could have been an excellent freeverse poem... the moment was perfect and the story was there... but the added words to force the rhyme through hurt it badly... i dont want to sound negative... just an opinion... a good memory like this should just be told... and not rhymed...
this line is what i am getting at...
But, as I stepped toward him, just imagine at my shock.....
to me the line would read much better if it had simply said "but, as i stepped toward him, just imagine my shock...
now i have to go to the clinic and get de-rhymed...
billy
-
Oh I think you are reading to much into this balladeer as my comment simply stated my feelings about the piece as I read it. Also, Allpoetry is the proud home to 90,260 poets so it's not surprising that I've never read you before.
Desiree
Edited on Aug 24, 1:47 p.m. because ''. -
ha..lol, they are not teenagers, but yes..I am proud, and thank you for your open-minded reply.
-
it would seem that if a user on this site disagrees with you, especially since you are a moderator,
You have made two comments on this poem and mentioned my moderator status on both of them. I really don't understand why my position should figure into the discussion of a poem.
Ok, now I have read you latest comment and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it in a respectful manner. If you will read my reply to Lisa hopefully you will get a better understanding of my thoughts behind the poem. I saw where you likened it to raising children and that would be in error. I do suppose one could apply it to forbidding your children to accept candy from strangers or a ride home. The child may find that unreasonable, mouth watering for that candy, but you would be doing it for his own good, of course. The examples you gave, however, did not figure into my way of thought, which well may be my inability to display my thoughts correctly.
Believe me, I welcome any discussion like this, as long as it is sincere and free of insults, innuendos and hidden agendas. We all have different views and we can all learn from one another. I like to think that what I write will be understood by the readers but it doesn't always work that way and it's constructive for me to know when it falls short. I will say that the poem has been posted on three websites and received many comments and, until now, absolutely no one has come up with the conclusions I have read here in the past day. Be that as it may, I accept your sincerity in your latest reply and, hopefully, we have both benefitted from this exchange of thoughts.
Having two well-behaved teenage daughters is a testament to their upbringing. You should be very proud - as I'm sure you are. -
Thank you Balladeer for your reply and your in depth explanation. What you've clarified, is what I suspected might be the underlying aim of your write, but I couldn't be sure.. partly I think because so much attention is paid to the lesson with the deer. I'm familiar with some of those old Indian sayings, and the whys of them, though I sometimes wonder if things are ever as straightforward as they seem when it comes to animals, and what should or shouldn't be done. That man is a threat to them, there is little doubt, and I suspect I might even take the same tactic if I thought there was a chance it would mean that animal stood a better chance at survival.
To answer your question, I'd prefer it was straight up in any male/female relationship, I dislike being strung along, and I don't string others along. .. so I do see your point here, as blunt as some things might be, in the end, they tend to be the better option, as other alternatives are little more than illusion.
I'm glad you appreciated my candor, I also appreciated yours.
Edited on Aug 24, 12:50 because ''. -
I thank you, Lisa, for such an interesting reply. Yes, writing of morals are always a touchy subject because there can be so many views. I'm sorry it didn't quite make it for you and I appreciate your candor.
Actually, my main though in writing this was concerning relationships between men and women. Some of the more illustrious responders here equated it with throwing rocks at people or cows...go figure. There are relationships in which the female (and, occasionally the male) serve as nothing more than trophies on the wall. There are also relationships in which one member knows that it just can't work out. Passion is one thing - full commitment is another. Yet the one will string along the other, knowing there is no future, and yet unwilling to end it, thereby ending his own personal, albeit temporary, pleasure. How many people hold on to the other, feigning love or making promises, until they find another? Is this fair to the other person? Of course not....but it happens, as we all know. How many men say anything to get the girl into bed and then disappear afterwards? How would you prefer it? Would you like to be fooled as long as possible or would you like to know the truth up front? This poem was a plea to not use those tactics....to be honest with the other person. The other person may not want to hear it. The other person may want the relationship so badly that they will be willing to take the risk, even though there is no hope. That's when you must throw the rock - and not literally. I'm rambling, I know, and not explaining very well but those were my thoughts in the writing of this piece.
When I saw that old Indian saying, it caused me to think. It's true that game that did not fear humans were in much more jeopardy. Even now there is concern about letting whales raised in captivity out in the wild for the same reason. I found it interesting that an apparent act of cruelty could be an expression of concern. I tried to employ it in a poem. For some it worked - for others it didn't. i appreciate your time in reviewing it and your well-though out comments. -
I understand your need to show my original comment in this..rather than the comment where I actually SAID something about the message in this poem, and honestly, I don't blame you..but I think my second comment held a lot more relevance about the message in your poem..and how I related to it.
Balladeer, I have actually read your poetry in the past, perhaps you don't remember, and that's fine, but I have read and commented as well in the past..so me being here, wouldn't really be all that unusual.
I actually didn't come here because of woodworm's post on this poem..another friend directed me here (yes, from the group, but she directed me here because she felt that the message was misguided) ...I apologize if you feel ganged up on, but unfortunately as a high profile member of the site, these things will happen.
I would like to reiterate that I find the discussion/debate taking place here very interesting, and would think that you would also appreciate the things being said.
-
Eloquently said, woodworm, but eloquence does not disguise facts. Politicians are eloquent and employ much of the same rhetoric. I will not help you pretend that the comments by your group members were sincere. Birchwood, zara, Desiree, nurse Chilly, shadowtiger and claire had never responded to a poem of mine before....and yet here they were, all showing up at the same time. What are the odds? What were the comments?
At least I now know how you got your name. I never even thought to ball a deer.
I get annoyed by anecdotes designed to make me realize the truth of some various moral doctrine that the story teller has adopted. They always seem shallow and incomplete. As if there were some supreme moral and that the story teller is convinced he knows what it is above anyone else. That is arrogance, really.
If your granddad felt happy pelting deer in the name of keeping them away from hunters .. cool beans for him. Did he free cows, too? Did he eat meat?
.this is annoying to the n'th degree something she has taught me. Aren't you glad you can delete this comment Have a nice day, Mr. Balladeer, and thank you EVER so much for the lesson.
this could easily be taken as a racist statement.
So what's this? A lesson for the kiddies?
Yeah that's what my Mummy done to us when we was little, threw rocks and moulding hams at our heads to learn us fear - right on Sister, right on.
"Those who offered criticism of your poem did so from a variety of viewpoints"...that is your statement? No, they basically did it from one viewpoint....sarcasm with as little critique as possible. You refer to discussion and debates? Do you find that in the above remarks? With all due respect, woodworm, your air of your group being the injured party would not fool anyone. The plan was well-orchestrated. You found the poem you could consider controversial, passed the information on to your group in much the same way the Pied Piper's tune induced the town rats to line up and follow, and they all showed up to do their part...these people who had never commented on my work before and all were struck, at the same time, to join in. There is no mystery here. There were also the comments about how I could delete the comments, BEING A MODERATOR. Actually I can delete the comments by simply being the author of the poem but it appears it would serve someone's purpose better if they could make some inuendo about my abusing my moderator powers to silence them.
Did the moderators show up to support me? Of course, and in much the same your friends showed up after your call. If they were simply friends instead of moderators, they would still have shown up because they recognized your group's actions for what they were. I did not see one comment of theirs that was innacurate. They seem to have a problem seeing individuals attack the poet through his poetry. It's one of those things that are supposed to be above the dignity of intelligent individuals. Actually, if I were not a moderator, they very well may have handed out harrassment warnings but I advised against it, knowing it would only serve as fodder for "moderator abuse".
Forgive me if I don't symphathize with your complaint about snideness, sarcasm and insults. Those are the tactics some of your group chose to employ. This has actually turned out the way some of you wanted it to, a platform to cause controversy, so my congratulations go out. It won't happen again.... -
In case someone should find it pertinent to state the obvious - yes I found this through the same group as some of those who've commented previously - then had to deliberate whether or not I would comment, suspecting that in doing so I'd waste quite a number of minutes in doing so considering what has already transpired here, but.. being the idiot I am, I opted to do so anyways, as there is something about this write that rings uncomfortable to my ear and it isn't the scan of the words.
I quite like ballads, and I quite like rhyme, so the style of this write appealed to me, and as far as its rhythm goes - I thought it was handled very well, however as with all poetry there is the issue of content- the message contained in the form.
We all have our anecdotes that have shaped us, helped us define who we are, how we interact with the world, and this would seem to be one of yours, yet it seems to be trying to impart some strong moral that is left rather unclear by your choice of wording.
Then, later still, as years went by, I found it very clear
The lesson grandpa taught me was not solely meant for deer.
Sometimes in human interaction those same words hold true
Maintaining proper distance is the only thing to do.
Proper distance? What exactly is this proper distance and how does it have anything to do with teaching a deer to fear humans? Are you implying that it's best to teach some people to fear other humans? I could see this in relation to teaching a child that one shouldn't be friendly with strangers, as we teach our children not to walk up to an unknown car, for their own protection, yet I must make a leap to get to that outcome. If so, yes you have a valid point, it's in our childrens best interest that we do that - because the world isn't a 'safe' nonthreatening place, but does that apply to adults? What other messages could be gleaned from those few sentences? It is best to put distance between oneself and all those who might be a threat? I dislike the thought behind that one as it seems to create 'sects' to me.
If we feel it is wrong of us to try to keep them near
We must forget our own self-interests - treat them like the deer.
That doesn't mean we have to look around for rocks to throw!!!
But, even if we love them, we may have to let them go.
If we feel it is wrong? Again, I'm left wondering if what you've done here, is tried to impart the old adage - if you love something, set it free - in different words, if so I don't think I'd have opted to equate it with throwing rocks at the deer.. because even though you've attempted to explain that it doesn't in your third line, your point is far from clear.
Sometimes we know, though love exists, the future isn't there
And we are headed down a road not going anywhere.
It's better we chase them away so they can stand up tall
Instead of being just a hunting trophy on the wall.
Now this one is interesting. It seems to imply that it's best if we distance those who would love us, or those we love, by forcing them to face facts, rather than pander to them for our own needs, or their own, yet coupled with all the above I find it difficult to tell if that is indeed what it is about.
All in all it seems this is trying to impart some very old morals in a different light, and I'd have to say that for me it doesn't quite make it. Moral stories are touchy territory, tough at best since the subject matter makes a perfect breeding ground for conflicts of interest. Odds are we all have a moral view, and odds are they differ greatly depending on those anecdotes we carry around in our pockets. As much as I try to stay away from them in my own writing, I'm sure they slip out now and then. . I think though, that when they do, it's best they do so in a clear manner, so that it's possible for the reader to say yes I agree, or no I don't, after all.. I somehow suspect you're rather big on clarity eh?..
~~Lisa/whims
Edited on Aug 24, 12:27 because ''. -
Hmm ok..I'm going to try this again. My last comment didn't quite state clearly my feeling on this poem.
I have two little girls, both of them are very well behaved. I have not disciplined them with 'fear' and I don't try to actively keep them away from the wolves as a means of 'protection'. By teaching them fear through discipline I would only make them pass on the same behaviours to others they meet. By hiding them from those things that could hurt them and sheltering them ..or beating them into submission until they wouldn't go near those things that might hurt them, I hurt them worse than by letting them be exposed.
There is a moral here, and while some will agree strongly and applaud it ..as a mother of two daughters who are both very well behaved (by using an opposite disciplinarian tactic) I can't come close to agreeing that what your grandfather did was right ..
If this is something that you agree with and works for you, thats great..isn't that what makes this world great? You can have your ideas ..and I can have mine ..and guess what, that doesn't mean either one of us is wrong..it merely means we disagree.
I have never thought everyone should agree in order for things to be 'right'. The thing about this that disturbs me a bit is that by reading some of the comments here ..the same ones woodworm referred to, it would seem that if a user on this site disagrees with you, especially since you are a moderator, we are all of a sudden beasts who 'feed on our own'. Its a sad day in allpoetry when that is the attitude of those who are meant to keep things peaceful.
The write is interesting, Balladeer. I like that it makes the user think ..and really even that it has inspired such in depth debate and conversation. Whether or not I agree with what you say here, this has opened up a discussion that might not have happened without it.
Edited on Aug 24, 10:19 because 'typotard is back'. -
Balladeer: I mentioned your poem in a writing group. I said nothing about the poem to the group that I did not say in my review. Since I posted my comment, you have had eleven different reviews from readers, five of whom are in the group.
Of the five reviews from people in the group, Zara detected a racist subtext in the poem but admired its structure; Birchwood drew parallels with meat-eating and offered a critique of the poem's ethical premise; Scott and Desiree both thought it was well constructed, and Desiree compared it to the late Repo, who was a friend of hers. Claire used satire to question your implicit assertion that it is in the interests of other people to teach them fear. All of these were focused on your poem: none of them were attacks ad hominem.
You have written a poem with a moral, and it seems appropriate that reviewers should discuss the implications of what you write. From reading the above reviews, it seems as though you have a good cross-section of opinions: several reviewers applauded the sentiments of the poem.
I thank you for recognising that my comments were sincere, which indeed they were. This comment, too, is made in complete sincerity and without any desire to put anyone down or hurt anyone.
Now let us turn to the comments that were fulsome in their praise of the poem, and largely uncritical of the moral premise contained therein. These came from Amulet Wolfbane, Symitar, Catz, Kimberley, Steven Morris and Ogreatbaldone. Some of these visited the poem after my review, suggesting that a similar 'grapevine' is in operation. What do these six reviewers have in common? They are all moderators of the site. Of these six, four managed to remain civil; Symitar offered a catch-all condemnation of those who "love the taste of blood" (as a pacifist, I find that a strange suggestion, if indeed it was partially aimed at me) and Kimberly made a sarcastic remark that seemed to be aimed at me, professing herself "nauseated" by the viewpoints expressed by reviewers including myself.
It is to your great credit, Balladeer, that you have not resorted to name-calling along with your colleagues.
Of course I try to abide by common decency and fair play. Those who offered criticism of your poem did so from a variety of viewpoints, and their opinions were not the same; mostly, they offered praise for aspects of the poem that they liked, such as the pacing and the rhyming. There was no "mob".
The problem here is that this page seems to have become polarised into conservatives and liberals. That is to be expected, when the topic is something like deer-hunting (there are very strong opinions on both sides, especially in my country at present.) What REALLY worries me, however, is that six moderators of the site rehearse the conservative position. Your premise - that it is in the best interests of Others to keep them at a distance, by mild cruelty if necessary (forgive me if I misread your poem here) is what I found problematic in this poem. Personally, I hold the contrary view: that if someone holds a different opinion, it is a good thing to discuss and debate with them, to learn and bring people together through a process of dialectics. I am genuinely interested in why you would feel this way about deer, and indeed people: hence my questions.
The snideness, sarcasm and downright insults came from Kimberly, who did not even have the "common decency" to insult me to my face, but rather made a pun on my screen-name in a correspondence to you. Did you not consider this rude?
-
First of all, I wish to apologize to balladeer for posting this here as it is not a comment directed at him.
Woodworm;
My comment was not satirical or rude nor was it directed at you or anyone else. To post comments directed to another person, whether it be me or someone else, on the post of another member is something I would however consider rude. Comments should be about the post, directed toward the member who crafted said post. If you wish to direct a comment to me, you should do so in an IM. I have never had an issue with you and have none now. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I have admired your work on many occasions as you well know.
As far as my comment goes, although I respect your opinioms my own interpretation does not have to mirror yours. I am allowed to think and feel as I wish. This may come as a shock to you but men are never going to fully understand the way a woman’s mind works, (After all we can take boiling hot wax, pour it onto our upper thigh, rip the hair out by the root and still be afraid of a spider.) therefore it is rarely safe to assume to know exactly what one is thinking without first asking, in light of the fact that my comment was to balladeer and not you or anyone else.
We share scarab badges? And this means what? Do you not belong to the same group as many other members here? In fact, unless I am mistaken, and if I am I apologize, do you not belong to the same group as many who have commented here? Most of which “appear” to have come to either trash the work of another or mimic words someone else has already stated. All of which seems rather odd to me. Is my comment really all that out of place?
Sincerely,
Kimberly
Again, I apologize to you Mike for the intrusion here on your page as this is not directed to you or your post here.
-
Actually your referral to someone being rude gave me my first smile this morning, sir...and Kimberly made an excellent point. The comments on this poem lately seem to bear that out.
Isn't it such an incredible thing that so many of my fellow poets all managed to find the same poem of mine to comment on within minutes of each other - a poem I had posted long ago? It's almost as if by divine inspiration.....or, at least, a healthy grapevine. One would think surely that such intelligent people would realize how transparent their actions are, therefore one of the two premises must be incorrect.
For a moment I was a little surprised but, then why should I have been? I'm reminded of school kids who flatten the teacher's tire because they can't be uncivil the the classroom. If these childish and unbecoming tactics are all that one can muster, then may the pack have fun. If it was designed to bother me, then I'm afraid it failed miserably. Only a fool is upset the the actions of those one doesn't respect. Yes, I could have deleted the obvious goads but I feel they speak so clearly about their owners people should have the chance to see them for what they really are and for what tactics they will sink to.
This, of course, doesn't refer to you, woodworm, or anyone who left sincere comments and I have no doubt it is nothing more than coincidence that the overwhelming desire to read my work hit everyone shortly after your comment. Perhaps it was karma, who can say?
No, Kimberly was right and it has nothing to do with scarab badges or Frank, Sammy and Dino. It has to do with decency and a sense of fair play...but, then again, what do children know of fair play? I did read somewhere the British are very proud of their sense of fair play so I'm sure you can understand..have a good day. -
Hunting in order to provide food or clothing for your family, as the native americans did, is done for survival. Hunting for fun, as talked about here, and putting the heads of animals on one's wall for display is a totally different thing. I understand the first, but not the second. Some people love to kill animals for sport, not to survive - the same way as some people have no regard for people and go after them in the same way. It seems that there are those that want to come here to put down a moderator because they can't do it on threads on the boards. Yes, he could delete these comments, but I doubt that he does. They show the true nature of those that have left them. Reminds me of the old west, the mob is screaming and someone is throwing a rope over a tree - most of them don't even care what they are screaming about. Its all about the screaming - and the hunting for trophies etc. They both love the taste of blood. I don't see whats wrong with this poem, but its all in the eye of the reader. I don't believe the accusations here were the intent of the writer because I know he is honorable. I doubt that any of you here believe that either. Just my take.
becky
Edited on Aug 24, 9:41 p.m. because ''. -
my mum used a leather strap on me and my brother.. and we posted it to some unknown out of the telephone book!!
Life is filled with crap ain't it..
and ohh my.. how to be so cruel..
I wont justify my next remark with you answering me
but your grandad was nuts!! okay.. what a load of bollocks..
the red indians killed deer and other animals to survive and eat..
I reckon this was just a version of sadism -
Too right, ball the deers, stick it in, ball them good, that'll teach them how to be shy
-
Yeah that's what my Mummy done to us when we was little, threw rocks and moulding hams at our heads to learn us fear - right on Sister, right on.
-
Or, as Richard Thompson put it: 'sometimes you've got to be kind to be cruel'.
Of course this poem is only metaphorically about deer, and takes the form of a "lesson" on human interactions. But let us stick with the deer, for now. Either one is pro-hunting or anti-hunting. I am against hunting and all other forms of animal cruelty, but that is my personal stance, and I entirely respect the pro-hunting point of view. However, if one is pro-hunting, surely the ethical position would be to kill the deer cleanly. If one is against hunting, like me, then man would not be the enemy of the deer in the first place. Some people are cruel to cats: only a few months ago, some children in my town kicked a kitten to death. Does it follow that I should beat my cat, to teach it that all humans are potential cat-killers? Surely not.
Then there is the metaphorical extension to human relationships. Why would you want to instil fear in another person? Should I bully or hurt someone as a didactic exercise, to inoculate them against those who might bully or hurt them more? Are you really suggesting this in your poem, Balladeer?
Kimberly:
I asked the author a question about his poem, and made some additional remarks about the very well crafted form. Your remark, an attempt at satire about certain 'beasts and insects' who hunt in packs, was both rude and misplaced, especially in view of your matching scarab-badges and seemingly identical ideological positions.
-
my fathers micmac forefathers had a similar tradition, but it was that they would run screaming at cariboo and moose, not the smartest thing to do to either of those animals, there is another old tradition of pulling moose antlers out of the warriors butts, but thats another moral, liked this , great moral. I think the previous genreation was far more in tune with nature than ours is. In fact I think this generaion has seen alot of decline in many important things, respect for nature being one and common decency being another, lets hope some of the lessons from generations past live on past ours...peace
-
This is wonderfully written and reminds me much of my own grandfather, having indian heritage. Memories and lessons like these stick with you your whole life and you did a great job expressing that. Kudos, can't wait to read more - Steven
-
I think there are some wonderful lessons to be learned here Mike. It sounds like your grandfather was a very wise and noble man. I imagine he also lived in the light of the knowledge that animals aren't the only created beings that travel in packs and certain beasts and insects both are known to feed off of their own. Ugh! It makes me nauseous just to think about it really.
♥ Kimberly
-
Yes, we all have poetry forms that annoy us and those that we feel comfortable with. My thanks for acknowledging the construction...
-
Thank you for reading, zara, although I'm not sure I understand your question. As far as it "easily being taken as racist", I find that unlikely since you are the first to have ever done that but, then, when people look for something they normally find a way to find it....thanks again.
-
Ah, but the trophies on the wall are sniped from a blind at great distances - no moral lesson there...
Well constructed (though I am always a tad annoyed by rhymed quatrains - just personal taste).
Scott -
So what's this? A lesson for the kiddies? Not a bad poem...rhyming was okay. Reminds me a little of Repo (rip) And the moral of the story is?
Desiree
-
Your skill with form is formidable. (Sorry, couldn't resist
)
The thing that's not clear in this poem is, who are "they"? I'm quite sure you don't mean it that way, but this could easily be taken as a racist statement. Take another look.
-
No, problem, miss. The reasoning behind your comment is obvious...and therefore dismissable. Have a nice evening..
-
I get annoyed by anecdotes designed to make me realize the truth of some various moral doctrine that the story teller has adopted. They always seem shallow and incomplete. As if there were some supreme moral and that the story teller is convinced he knows what it is above anyone else. That is arrogance, really.
After all, most of us don't think about these things, as those who tell us what is right seem to think. (A little sarcasm intended, here)
Edited on Aug 24, 6:46 because ''. -
Isn't the interaction between various morals a hard one to deal with. On the one hand, you don't want to hurt the deer. On the other, you don't want the deer to trust those who might hurt it; who are an awful lot like you.
On the other hand, there are those poor cow ... perfectly innocent and trusting and then a smack! on the head and they are a T-bone and whatever tasty tidbit you like. They line up for slaughter at the gate. We think they don't understand shit because we don't want them to. Of course, I think most people don't understand shit becuase, well, I'm convinced they don't. But I get over the fact that these idiots seem to be in control. Nature favors whatever beast wins .. regardless of what we think might be best for our own definitions of natural order, or supreme truth .. or whatever or religion or non-religion should be.
If your granddad felt happy pelting deer in the name of keeping them away from hunters .. cool beans for him. Did he free cows, too? Did he eat meat? -
Thank you for the reply, woodworm. Fear not - I would never use a moderating position to silence anyone critiquing my work.
What is the message? Actually I wrote this poem by using an actual Indian phrase. "The kindest way to treat a deer is throw a rock to teach it fear." The thought behind that is the following:
Fear of humans is one of the greatest defenses hunted animals, or game, have. This fear is well-founded. An animal that does not run from the sight of a hunter may be dinner by evening. Should you do something to gain the confidence of an animal, feeding it, showing it kindness, petting it, etc you may be taking away that fear, fear the animal needs to survive. The animal needs to know that man is its enemy. In the poem the man threw rocks to instill fear in the animal of humans. This could save the animal's life in the long run. His thoughts were of the deer - as were the Indians who actually used this phrase. Call it tough love, if you will..
...and, no, that's not how I got my name... -
This poem chills the living shites out of me, not least because it is competently constructed, and it scans. And it is well-paced, and draws you into its message. It is the work of a practised writer, and a fine craftsman.
What is its message? I truly do not know. Bombard the crap out of one who did you no harm?
I am not attempting any irony here, but asking you in all sincerity to outline the moral message that this is meant to convey. I feel very confused. As a Moderator, you have the power to silence me. Perhaps you feel this is the kindest thing you could do?
At least I now know how you got your name. I never even thought to ball a deer.
Edited on Aug 23, 5:08 p.m. because ''. -
Dee, nobody;s poetry is superior to one that writes from the heart, which i know you do....thanks for the trip down my memory lane
-
The lessons best remembered and adhered to throughout our lives are the ones which were learned through real life and with strong teaching. Your grandfather was a wise man, Michael, as I'm sure you know.
Your poem is splendid, I love these nostalgic poems and yours is the second one I've read today.
I have a few posted, too and love writing them, though yours as written here and the other one I read are far superior to my writing.
Thanks for sharing this wonderful poem with it's 'lesson' in life.
Luv and
Dee
-
Interesting indeed how life's lessons come to us in so many different ways. We pick them up as we go, and hopefully we will remember them to teach somehow to our own children. Lead by example, something we should always remember. Reading this makes me thing of my own grandfather, and his strong faith in God and his ever-forgiving nature. In my line of work, I see many elderly people tossed to the side, left in nursing homes and never visited, and its such a shame because they have the benefit of all those lessons learned in their long life to share with us, and their family isn't there to learn them.
Great piece here.
becky -
I hope that young deer lived a long and healthy life, as I am sure your grandfather must have wanted for you as well. They are such beautiful animals. I will never make a good hunter as long as I am not starving. I enjoy their living beauty too much. We have an elk reserve near here that seems to loose bulls to poachers every now and again. They have not learned fear, either, in that protected area. The poaching destestable, and it is usually for the antlers only.
Edited on Jul 02, 8:18 p.m. because ''. -
Thank you, gypsy. I have a fair amount of poems relating to my family. I enjoy writing them and reliving the memories...glad you enjoyed!
-
This outstanding! I love reading pieces like this, so full of real life memories, bringing many of my own to thoughts. Great times with my Grandpa, I miss him. Beautifully done. Blessings, Gypsy
-
Thank you, Betty! I'm very glad you enjoyed it
-
Excellent
I love this write! Your ,Grandpa was a very wise man..I know he is looking down at you, smiling for this beautiful write you've , written for him..Yes, Im sure he knows how much you, learned from him..What a beautiful tribute to him..Excellent!
God bless ,
Betty
Adding your comment:
1 - 75 of 75
